Remission in Bano case
Asense of revulsion was palpable when the 11 men sentenced to life imprisonment for the gangrape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots were feted with garlands and sweets as they walked free last year. The Supreme Court’s striking observations on a petition questioning their premature release have given fresh impetus to the wheels of justice. More important is the strong message being sent about adherence to standards of legal morality. As it asked the Gujarat government about the reasons behind its decision to grant remission, there was a reminder that for heinous crimes that affect society at large, the power of clemency must be exercised keeping in mind public interest and the gravity of the offence. A massacre, the judges observed, cannot be compared with a single murder.
In 2006, the apex court had quashed the remission granted to a murder convict in Andhra Pradesh for being a ‘good Congress worker’, setting a high benchmark. It had then said that the President or Governor cannot exercise their powers of granting clemency on the grounds of religion, caste and political affiliation and doing so would be tantamount to utter disregard of the rule of law. The ruling’s resonance is being felt in the Bano case. On March 27, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Centre and the Gujarat government, terming the offence horrendous and wondering whether the same standards had been applied to other jailed murderers. They have not shared the remission files, indicating their intention to challenge the directive to produce these.
The restorative justice process allows perpetrators to seek amnesty after being made to understand the trauma of the victims or their families, and exhibiting remorse. In the Bano case, just the opposite could be true. The release of the convicts sets a bad example of remission of a sentence.
